Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNOME Maps

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Maps

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of this software is not established. The only non-affiliated, non-self published source that I could find is a post on Phoronix that doesn't establish GNOME Maps "as significant in its particular field". There's also a SoftPedia article, which suffers from the same problem: it says GNOME Maps got improved, but not that it's actually notable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy KEEP. It is part of the GNOME and was merely introduced with GNOME 3.10. But maybe we should delete the article, that took me 10minutes to create and then wait until somebody re-creates it again, when the software will be considered notable enough... sure. Keep up the "good" "work". User:ScotXW^t@lk 11:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason to keep is an instance of WP:INHERIT: being related to something notable does not imply sufficient notability to warrant a separate article. Also, please stay civil and don't take this personally. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is WP:SNOW instance. GNOME Maps is rather new application – it actually has preview status within GNOME, which is local analog to beta. Given that GNOME is one of most widely deployed UNIX desktop environments, most likely this application will recieve its share of reviews and other sorts of public attention rather sooner then later. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning goes directly against WP:CRYSTAL, and I don't see how the snowball clause applies here. There's enough precedent for deleting pages about very minor computer programs, including open sources ones and including ones that are part of larger packages that do meet the notability guidelines. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL only talks of article about future events, why did you mention it? Anyway, I added several references to several news items and even two reviews, so this article may be considered barely satisfying WP:GNG. – — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being part of GNOME doesn't make this particular application notable (and GNOME has 100s of such apps). The only references around are mostly list of new GNOME apps where maps is listed as one of them. --CyberXRef^☎ 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.